In principle, it can be said that documents enjoy protection regardless of when they are created because of the nature of the obligation of confidentiality described above. In general, there is no specific rule regarding the type of documents or content protected. A lawyer`s privileged information may include all facts, information and data obtained by the lawyer in the performance of his or her professional duties. Communication with registered in-house lawyers is therefore not protected by Union legal secrecy, even if the in-house lawyer is a member of the bar association or bar concerned, irrespective of the status of the in-house lawyer registered under national law. The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the relationship of an in-house lawyer registered as an employee of the company naturally does not allow him to ignore the commercial strategies of his employer. Communication with lawyers admitted outside the EEA is not protected. In the case of communications of any kind between a lawyer and an in-house lawyer (as the recipient of a legal service), the general principles of solicitor-client privilege apply. However, if an in-house lawyer communicates with a person who is not a neutral third party (for example, documents are transmitted within the company), solicitor-client privilege does not apply. Yes. The legal advice privilege exists between a foreign lawyer and his client to the same extent as the legal advice privilege between a Hong Kong lawyer and his client. The approach taken in determining the issue of legal advice privilege is the same as in communicating with Hong Kong lawyers. Professional secrecy protects all communications between a professional legal advisor and his or her client from disclosure without the client`s permission. Privilege benefits only the client and not the lawyer.

The purpose of this legal principle is to protect access to justice by ensuring that individuals can provide all relevant information to their legal advisers without fear that such disclosure may have negative effects or affect them in the future. Although Article 19 provides that solicitor-client privilege may be effectively curtailed by law, Indonesian law generally protects solicitor-client privilege between clients and lawyers. As a result, the scope of solicitor-client privilege in civil proceedings, law enforcement and antitrust investigations is similar. In particular, however, solicitor-client privilege may be compromised by: As long as the client seeks legal advice from a qualified lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction, communication is privileged. This issue has not been dealt with in detail in Canadian courts. The safest option would be to keep a Canadian lawyer who would then communicate with the qualified foreign lawyer, which would provide a stronger basis for communication. It is not entirely clear. In the context of the travaux préparatoires of the Code of Judicial Procedure, it is alleged that the abovementioned prohibition on lawyers and authorised lawyers testifying on information obtained in the course of tasks other than judicial proceedings must be interpreted in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-550/07 P, which specified that only independent and non-salaried lawyers are protected. However, it is not clear whether this also applies to information obtained by in-house lawyers registered in legal proceedings in their capacity as lawyers or legal advisers to the employer.

All data (oral, written, electronic, etc.) collected in the course of legal practice and correspondence between lawyer and client are considered privileged by law – unless these data are in the public file – even after the end of the lawyer-client relationship and cannot even be used for judicial purposes. Lawyers who are nationals of another EU Member State, a State party to the EEA Agreement or Switzerland and who are admitted to the Bar in at least one of these countries have the same rights and obligations regarding legal professional secrecy as Bulgarian lawyers admitted to practise before one of the Bulgarian local bar associations. With regard to the prohibition of seizure based on the right to refuse to testify, § 97 para. 2 StPO stipulates that the person entitled to refuse to testify must be in possession of the correspondence in question.